I. Introduction According to Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke (2005), “a rational examination of torture and a consideration of hypothetical (but realistic) cases show that torture is justifiable in order to prevent great harm.” I agree to the statement above as justifying torture will minimize future harm. But how does justifying torture minimize future harm? This essay will further breakdown the circumstances in which torture is justifiable. Generalizing the justification of torture is not anymore about the question whether torture is ever defensible; but to the talking of circumstances in which it is morally permissible (Bagaric & Clarke, 2005). Justifying torture also accommodates its practice. In the world where torture is still happening, …show more content…
Convention against Torture, the practice of torture is still happening worldwide. Dershowitz mentioned one of the important facts that a regulation is better than nothing at all. Moreover, the fact that its practice is still widely used despite of its absolute ban tells that torture’s practice right now is occurring without proper regulation and control legally. He added, “I think that we’re much, much better off admitting what we’re doing it at all.” (Dershowitz, 2005). If we are able to justify torture, we can as well have trained and professional people to do it. With that, the torturer will only be those who are experienced and skilled enough to inflict pain with techniques that are accurate and can actually result in wanted information mentioned. V. Conclusion In the end, talking about torture is not about black or white and right or wrong, but it is more of justifying the means of its practice. Torture can be justified only to rare circumstances that have a certain degree of importance and during a pressured time frame. Justifying torture should be seen from the light of human nature that seeks for the least harmless outcome; inflicting harm to an agent as the mean of saving bigger number of people. Justifying torture is needed so that it can be well executed, supervised and
In the article “The Case for Torture”, Michael Levin argues that the use of torture as a way to save lives is justifiable and necessary. Levin draws a series of cases where torture might be acceptable so as to set certain precedent for the justification of torture in more realistic cases. HoweverLevin illustrates three cases where torture might be justifiable.he describes a terrorist keeping city of millions hostage to an atomic bomb, the second, a terrorist who has implanted remote bombs on a plane and the third, a terrorist who has kidnapped a baby. torture and its consequences have been recorded in countries around of world over a vast span of time, and for a variety of reasons. Levin makes no such attempt to expand his article beyond
After finding some torture tactics, it helped me research about the negative effects of torture. In his article, “Torture is a Crime”, Curt Goering listed the negative effects of torture. He argues that torture is illegal, ineffective, immoral and makes those around us unsafe. Curt uses ethos in his piece to back up his main argument. For example, he mentions that in 1984, the UN adopted the Convention against torture and it was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1990.
Mahatma Gandhi, the preeminent leader of the Indian independence movement states “You can chain me, you can torture me, you can even destroy this body, but you will never imprison my mind.” This is important because torture is brutal on the body and mind. The article “Torture’s Terrible Toll” by John McCain is more convincing then the article “The Case for Torture” by Michael Levin because McCain provides more logical reasoning, he adds his own personal experience of being a captured prisoner during the Vietnam War, and he creates an emotional bond with people around the world. Through more logical reasoning McCain Argument is more valid than Levin.
In the case that there is sufficient evidence of guilt as well as coconspirators, torture may be allowed but none that is inhumane. Document B: The Massachusetts Body of Liberties allows torture in the case that somebody is deemed guilty by clear evidence. In the Laws of Connecticut Colony, no torture is allowed whatsoever. Document C: Mather advises judges to continue the regular American method of obtaining confessions and to abstain from torture, for confusion is more likely to get a confession than torture. Document D: Henry warns that Congress will attempt to extort confession by practicing torture.
The Case for Torture Wins Torture is it morally acceptable? Many have debated this argument but I would like to bring up two main conflicting view points from Michael Levin, and Marzieh Ghisai. Michael Levin is a Jewish law professor who wrote The Case for Torture where he advocates where torture is acceptable in some circumstances.
My opposition to torture fall under the beliefs of the absolutist Kant, who states that no matter what the circumstance is, something that is wrong will always be wrong (Boothe 2006, 12). Therefore, concerning the issue of torture, in this world or any other world, torture is immoral. In this paper, I will employ the ethical frameworks of virtue, rights, and fairness to argue against torture when viewed from the perspective of the victim, the torturer, and any outside source. Furthermore, I will dismantle the ticking-bomb scenario by deducing the incapability to achieve full certainty deeming these scenarios unrealistic.
It is disturbing to learn how people were humiliated and maltreated, and how exquisitely brutal were the devices invented to subdue and discipline people. The reason torture was commonly accepted during the Middle Ages was the lack of police or law enforcement. It was believed that to prevent crime,
In this article the author asks the question as to whether torture is a viable source in getting information. Since there is other moral ways of getting information. Some of these methods have shown to be more efficient. They also leave the victim’s mind intact. Janoff-Bulman, Ronnie.
Dershowitz argues that there are two ways to deal with a ticking bomb terrorist, besides doing nothing and letting innocent people die. These options include continuing to torture behind closed door or to utilize torture and make this information open to the
While analyzing “The Torture Myth” and “The Case for Torture”, it is very clear to see the type of rhetorical appeals used to persuade the audience. Anne Applebaum, the writer of “The Torture Myth” --in context of the decision of electing a new Attorney General--would argue that torture is very seldomly effective, violates a person’s rights, and should be outlawed due to the irrational need upon which physical torture is used. On the other hand, Michael Levin strongly argues that physical torture is crucial to solving every imminent danger to civilians. Levin claims that if you don’t physically torture someone, you are being weak and want to allow innocent people to die over something that could have been simply done.
Most of the time when someone is tortured it is because the interrogators are desperate for Important or valuable information. However, why would real “terrorist” give up valuable information that would expose their cause and what they believe in when they know they are going to die one way or the other. This just goes to show that the “suspected terrorist” are in fact suspected and aren’t real terrorist and shouldn’t be
There is space for arguments to determine to what extent torture can be accepted as the right choice of action and to what extent this is not applicable. One of the core features of this essay is that here
In Michael Levin’s “The Case for Torture”, he uses many cases of emotional appeal to persuade the reader that torture is necessary in extreme cases. There are many terms/statements that stick with the reader throughout the essay so that they will have more attachment to what is being said. Levin is particularly leaning to an audience based in the United States because he uses an allusion to reference an event that happened within the states and will better relate to the people that were impacted by it. The emotional appeals used in this essay are used for the purpose of persuading the reader to agree that in extreme instances torture is necessary and the United States should begin considering it as a tactic for future cases of extremity. One major eye catching factor of this essay is the repetitive use of words that imply certain stigmas.
The kidnapper was prosecuted and sentenced to life imprisonment; however the officer ‘was also prosecuted and convicted of violating the kidnappers rights’ (Sandel, 2011). This presents an interesting moral dilemma, can torture ever be justified? And was the officer acting in a morally respectable way? In this essay I will answer these questions by analysing the arguments which justify or condemn his actions, from both the utilitarian and deontological perspectives.
In Michael Levin's The Case for Torture, Levin provides an argument in which he discusses the significance of inflicting torture to perpetrators as a way of punishment. In his argument, he dispenses a critical approach into what he believes justifies torture in certain situations. Torture is assumed to be banned in our culture and the thought of it takes society back to the brutal ages. He argues that societies that are enlightened reject torture and the authoritative figure that engage in its application risk the displeasure of the United States. In his perspective, he provides instances in which wrongdoers put the lives of innocent people at risk and discusses the aspect of death and idealism.